[DRAFT] Traditional Fishing Act

[Emishin]

OOC: apologies, I just checked the bulleted list in the categories section of the rules and fishing is not there. My bad.

No problem, I can learn many things from you

OOC: Okay, I will fix the category of the proposal

(OOC: The category you have now is fine; there isn’t a need to change it.)

I will not

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't get this; it gives the right of people to a non-person entity. It would be akin to giving the right of entrance to a kennel for a person who has a dog ... to some nation. The nation cannot exercise that right because it is not a natural person, unless you would mean to have the nation actually do those things; but if the definition is implicitly backward looking, there are no rights to exercise, since the nation's directly owned fishing firm has no traditional fishing spots.

maybe there is a little misunderstanding about what I mean in that clause points, what if I change the two clauses to be like this: "Defines, the traditional fishing rights as the rights granted by a nation to traditional fishermen from other nations to use their territorial waters as fishing locations according to existing cultural values and historical facts", I will also explain the rights given in the subclause of that clause. and "Guarantees, the traditional fishing rights as a legal right for traditional fishermen in all World Assembly member nations", I mean here the right to fishing is only given to fishermen not the nation.

EMW: How about people in Northern Lesbosia who fish in Lake Sanganika who are all under the jurisdiction of the Imperial Parliament? Why should they be excluded from having traditional rights guaranteed by the World Assembly while this proposal would force us to give those rights to people across the lake in Sanganzia? What distinguishing feature precludes them from receiving these rights?

If traditional fishermen have not historically done these things, the requirement of making them do these things changes the activity which they are conducting, which obliterates the right under your proposal to traditionally fish. Is that intended? Because we're half way to an interesting way of paying lip service to traditional practices while setting up a legal mechanism to stop them.

how if I change prohibits to restricts the traditional fishermen to overfishing in traditional fishing areas that are protected by a nation to protect ecosystems in these waters. does that make sense ?

Not all the externalities associated with fishing are overfishing related. The methods could be damaging not only to the ocean, but to life and limb of the sailors. Or perhaps traditional practices force the creation of a monopoly which inflates the price of fish to unaffordable levels. Traditions need not be good ones; many of them are quite pernicious. Blindly permitting their practice can be damaging to the worst-off people in society, especially when traditional practices are skewed towards elites. Entrenching them as rights unto themselves simply entrenches the power of those elites and stymies reform.

[Emishin]

maybe there is a little misunderstanding about what I mean in that clause points, what if I change the two clauses to be like this: "Defines, the traditional fishing rights as the rights granted by a nation to traditional fishermen from other nations to use their territorial waters as fishing locations according to existing cultural values and historical facts", I will also explain the rights given in the subclause of that clause. and "Guarantees, the traditional fishing rights as a legal right for traditional fishermen in all World Assembly member nations", I mean here the right to fishing is only given to fishermen not the nation.

EMW: How about people in Northern Lesbosia who fish in Lake Sanganika who are all under the jurisdiction of the Imperial Parliament? Why should they be excluded from having traditional rights guaranteed by the World Assembly while this proposal would force us to give those rights to people across the lake in Sanganzia? What distinguishing feature precludes them from receiving these rights?

how if I change prohibits to restricts the traditional fishermen to overfishing in traditional fishing areas that are protected by a nation to protect ecosystems in these waters. does that make sense ?

Not all the externalities associated with fishing are overfishing related. The methods could be damaging not only to the ocean, but to life and limb of the sailors. Or perhaps traditional practices force the creation of a monopoly which inflates the price of fish to unaffordable levels. Traditions need not be good ones; many of them are quite pernicious. Blindly permitting their practice can be damaging to the worst-off people in society, especially when traditional practices are skewed towards elites. Entrenching them as rights unto themselves simply entrenches the power of those elites and stymies reform.

finally I understood about people from northern lesbosia where fishing in Sanganika Lake. it is like why fishermen from other nations can fish in these waters even though many local fishermen have clear rights and laws to fish in these waters. perhaps this can be burdensome for local fishermen in fishing because they not only compete with each other but also the foreign fishermen.

how if I redefining the right like this, "Defines, the traditional fishing rights as the fishing rights granted to certain groups of fishermen of a particular nation who have habitually fished in certain areas over a long period that inherited from the previous generations and kept in practice by the current generation". Related to this, traditional fishing rights are divided into 2 types:
first, right exercised by nationals of one nation in another nation’s jurisdiction. The practice is conducted outside their national jurisdiction.
second, right exercised by traditional inhabitants or indigenous peoples within their national jurisdiction.

How your think ?

[Imperium Anglorum]

finally I understood about people from northern lesbosia where fishing in Sanganika Lake. it is like why fishermen from other nations can fish in these waters even though many local fishermen have clear rights and laws to fish in these waters. perhaps this can be burdensome for local fishermen in fishing because they not only compete with each other but also the foreign fishermen.

Can you clarify? I am identifying that your proposal would force nations to permit foreigners who have a "traditional" claim to the water fishing rights while denying them of their own citizens. What justifies this disparate treatment?

how if I redefining the right like this, "Defines, the traditional fishing rights as the fishing rights granted to certain groups of fishermen of a particular nation who have habitually fished in certain areas over a long period that inherited from the previous generations and kept in practice by the current generation". Related to this, traditional fishing rights are divided into 2 types:
first, right exercised by nationals of one nation in another nation’s jurisdiction. The practice is conducted outside their national jurisdiction.
second, right exercised by traditional inhabitants or indigenous peoples within their national jurisdiction.

First, the jurisdictional issue is phrased incorrectly: here, all things happen in a jurisdiction. The question that requires answering basically comes down to "How do we manage diversity?". Is it territorial? Is it jurisdiction applied to peoples rather than territories? These separate types of jurisdictions cannot all persist in the same place without raising enforcement issues.

Second, particularising fishing rights to a certain group of people who have shown uninterrupted use of granted privileges doesn't really, to me, seem to do much. However, before I get to that question, there's the original question three posts of mine ago: What goal or end do you want this proposal to achieve? Specifically who is protected? Why are they protected? And what protections do you want to grant?

[Ransium]

This is not a pro-environment proposal, it is in the wrong category and therefore illegal. I also think allowing fishing regardless of the sustainability of the fishery contradicts GAR 197 - Sustainable Fishing Act. Specifically:

5. PROHIBITS Overfishing in the national waters of Member Nations and in international waters over which Member Nations have an internationally recognized jurisdictional right.

6. REQUIRES Member Nations to prohibit Overfishing by their own people in all other waters if the other nations that harvest those particular waters agree to refrain from Overfishing in them as well.

Note that just because fishing a place has been sustainable doesn't mean it is now will be in the future. I'm sure cod has been fished sustainably for centuries in New England, however, since the cod fishery has collapsed even previously sustainable fishing is no longer.

[Bears Armed]

This is not a bad pro-environment proposal, it is in the wrong category and therefore illegal. I also think allowing fishing regardless of the sustainability of the fishery contradicts GAR 197 - Sustainable Fishing Act.

Specifically:

5. PROHIBITS Overfishing in the national waters of Member Nations and in international waters over which Member Nations have an internationally recognized jurisdictional right.

6. REQUIRES Member Nations to prohibit Overfishing by their own people in all other waters if the other nations that harvest those particular waters agree to refrain from Overfishing in them as well.

Note that just because fishing a place has been sustainable doesn't mean it is now will be in the future. I'm sure cod has been fished sustainably for centuries in New England, however, since the cod fishery has collapsed even previously sustainable fishing is no longer.

OOC

I agree on this point.
(The reason why that resolution doesn't have 'Fishing' as its AoE, by the way, is because it was drafted & passed before 'Fishing' was added to the list of options...)

There's also the question of whether GA Resolution #267 ‘Sensible Limits on Hunting’ applies to fishing, as well as to hunting on land, subject to the limitation (stated within its text) that it only applies "within any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force". I am of the opinion that "fishing" is just hunting in water, so that it does apply, but GenSec has not yet been called on to make a ruling about this.

[Kenmoria]

“I’ve put some feedback on this proposal in my traditional red.”

(Image)

Traditional Fishing Act Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: Fishing Having considered the matter further, you aren’t actually protecting the environment. Instead, what you are doing is protecting the cultural heritage of traditional fishing. Therefore, education and creativity - cultural heritage would be more appropriate. Apologies for me not making my mind up until now.

A General Assembly resolution focusing on traditional fishing rights and areas, especially for nations that are geographically surrounded by the ocean. Further bilateral agreements may be needed for nations regarding this resolution. This would be better if it were to be split into clauses. As it stands, this seems out of place. No preamble? If you look at any of the other proposals being debated in these chambers, or at passed resolutions, you’ll see a bit before the active clauses called the preamble. I suggest adding one of these. The World Assembly hereby, Describes, the traditional fishing is an activity for fishing with traditional boats by fishermen which has been going on for thousands of years and has become the cultural heritage of their ancestors This could be a preamble clause, and moved above the ‘hereby’, or you could be trying to define something. If you are doing a definition, use ‘define’ instead of ‘describes’. Describes, the traditional fishermen are indigenous peoples who work as fishermen based on the culture that has been implemented for a long period The comments for the above clause also apply here. Defines, the traditional fishing rights as the fishing rights granted to certain groups of fishermen of a particular nation who have habitually fished in certain areas over a long period that inherited from the previous generations and kept in practice by the current generation. There are two types of traditional fishing rights, among them are; You could put this more succinctly, since you have a total of one clause and two subclauses for a simple definition. traditional fishing rights exercised by traditional inhabitants or indigenous peoples within their national jurisdiction traditional fishing rights exercised by nationals of one nation in another nation’s jurisdiction. The practice is conducted outside their national jurisdiction Defines, the traditional fishing areas as the locations of fishing for traditional fishermen in international waters as well as those that intersect with the waters of other nations based on the rights granted Guarantees, the traditional fishing rights as a legal right for traditional fishermen in all World Assembly member nations What does this actually mean? Clarify what you hope to achieve by recognising fishing rights. Understands, the traditional fishing areas as a special water area that are permitted by a nation for fishing activities of traditional fishermen of indigenous peoples based on legal elements, historical facts and cultural values This, likewise, should be either in the preamble or be as a definition. More generally, you don’t have many active clauses. I recommend thinking about what you want to achieve, and coming up with a list of things that need to happen in order for this to be achieved. Then turned these into active clauses.

[United Massachusetts]

(OOC: The banner at the top is very pretty. The formatting is beautiful!)

[Araraukar]

(OOC: The banner at the top is very pretty. The formatting is beautiful!)

OOC: Except for the annoying thick black outline. And the picture is unnecessarily large, really.

[Kyrgwalaey]

“I’ve put some feedback on this proposal in my traditional red.”

(Image)

Traditional Fishing Act Category: Environmental | Industry Affected: Fishing Having considered the matter further, you aren’t actually protecting the environment. Instead, what you are doing is protecting the cultural heritage of traditional fishing. Therefore, education and creativity - cultural heritage would be more appropriate. Apologies for me not making my mind up until now.

A General Assembly resolution focusing on traditional fishing rights and areas, especially for nations that are geographically surrounded by the ocean. Further bilateral agreements may be needed for nations regarding this resolution. This would be better if it were to be split into clauses. As it stands, this seems out of place. No preamble? If you look at any of the other proposals being debated in these chambers, or at passed resolutions, you’ll see a bit before the active clauses called the preamble. I suggest adding one of these. The World Assembly hereby, Describes, the traditional fishing is an activity for fishing with traditional boats by fishermen which has been going on for thousands of years and has become the cultural heritage of their ancestors This could be a preamble clause, and moved above the ‘hereby’, or you could be trying to define something. If you are doing a definition, use ‘define’ instead of ‘describes’. Describes, the traditional fishermen are indigenous peoples who work as fishermen based on the culture that has been implemented for a long period The comments for the above clause also apply here. Defines, the traditional fishing rights as the fishing rights granted to certain groups of fishermen of a particular nation who have habitually fished in certain areas over a long period that inherited from the previous generations and kept in practice by the current generation. There are two types of traditional fishing rights, among them are; You could put this more succinctly, since you have a total of one clause and two subclauses for a simple definition. traditional fishing rights exercised by traditional inhabitants or indigenous peoples within their national jurisdiction traditional fishing rights exercised by nationals of one nation in another nation’s jurisdiction. The practice is conducted outside their national jurisdiction Defines, the traditional fishing areas as the locations of fishing for traditional fishermen in international waters as well as those that intersect with the waters of other nations based on the rights granted Guarantees, the traditional fishing rights as a legal right for traditional fishermen in all World Assembly member nations What does this actually mean? Clarify what you hope to achieve by recognising fishing rights. Understands, the traditional fishing areas as a special water area that are permitted by a nation for fishing activities of traditional fishermen of indigenous peoples based on legal elements, historical facts and cultural values This, likewise, should be either in the preamble or be as a definition. More generally, you don’t have many active clauses. I recommend thinking about what you want to achieve, and coming up with a list of things that need to happen in order for this to be achieved. Then turned these into active clauses.

With the details added in based on these criticisms, it would be our pleasure to support this cause.